Final Order/Judgment
Date of filing : 25 October, 2016.
Date of Order : 04 September, 2023.
Mr. DHIRAH KUMAR DEY, Hon’ble Member.
The instant case arises when Mrs. Toeba Nasrin Sultana, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter called the said act, against (1) the Manager, M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., (2) the Proprietor, M/s. Kutchina Lifestyle Appliances, (3) the Service Manager, M/s. Rao Enterprises, and (4) the Service Manager, Service Head Quarters, Bangalore – 68, hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency of service arising out of the unsatisfactory performance of the OPs.
The facts, as stated in the complaint petition and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the complainant purchased a water purifier machine of M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Model – RO Reviva, on 11/10/2015 along with Ironil and Wall Mount Tray, paying a total amount of Rs.17,535/- to a saleswoman on 11/10/2015. On that date she purchased Kutchina Vetra also from the same saleswoman. The company of OP-1 then issued two Challan and Tax Invoices for the water purifier, Ironil and Wall Mount Tray on 16/10/2015. Complainant alleged that the water purifier was creating various problems like water storage problem etc. while in use for almost 7 to 8 times. On 12/07/2016 she lodged a complaint to the OP-3 for such problems. Representative of the OP-3 attended the machine but could not solve the problem for which complainant demanded to replace the machine as it was under warranty at that time. But the defective water purifier has not been replaced nor had the problems been solved. On 20/07/2016 she again lodged a complaint before the OP-3 to solve all problems of the water purifier immediately but this time also the problems were not solved and the problems of the machine remained unattended after 20/07/2016 for which she filed this complaint before this Forum/Commission praying to direct the OPs: (1) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment due to deficiency in service by the OPs, (2) to either solve all the problems of the water purifier or return back Rs.17,535/- paid by her to purchase the machine together with interest from the date of payment, (iii) simple interest rate upon all due amounts till realization, (4) litigation costs and any other relief or reliefs as this Forum/Commission may deem fit as per law.
Complainant filed copies of (i) three receipts issued by OP-2 on 11/10/2015 & 15/10/2015, (ii) one challan & Tax Invoice and one Tax Invoice cum Receipt issued by the OP-1 both dated 16/10/2015, (iii) one service request activity report issued by OP-3 on 12/07/2016 and (iv) one letter dated 20/07/2016 submitted by the complainant to OP-3 as annexure to the complaint petition.
After admitting the complaint, this Forum/Commission sent notices to the Ops to appear and file their written version. OP- 1 & 4 appeared and filed their written version. OP- 2 & 3 never appeared despite repeated opportunities were given to them, even by the substituted service through paper publication in a daily English news paper on 06/02/2020, and thereby the case proceeded ex parte against OP- 2 & 3. Complainant then filed her Evidence on Affidavit and the OP- 1 & 4 filed questionnaire thereafter. Complainant filed replies against questionnaires of OP- 1 & 4. Thereafter OP- 1 & 4 filed their Evidence on Affidavit. Complainant was not intended to file any questionnaire and thereby the case proceeded to argument. Argument was heard and the complainant filed her Brief Notes of Arguments. OP- 1 & 4 also filed their BNA. We are now in a position to deliver the final order in this case.
We have to decide:
a) Whether the complainant can be called a ‘Consumer’ in this case?
b) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service by solving problems of the water purifier in question or not? And
c) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Let us take these points together in our consideration in order to avoid repetition and for brevity.
DECISION WITH REASONS
The material facts as emerged from the complaint petition and the annexed documents state that the complainant purchased a new Water Purifier of Model – RO Reviva of M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., along with Ironil and Wall Mount Tray through a saleswoman of OP- 2 company on 11/10/2015 by paying a total Rs.17,535/-, wherein the value of the Water Purifier was Rs.14,990/-, Ironil – Rs.2,150/- and Wall Mount Tray – Rs.395/-. The OP- 1 company then issued one Challan & Tax Invoice for the water purifier and one Tax Invoice-Cum-Receipt for the Ironil and Wall Mount Tray on 16/10/2015. Complainant has not mentioned on what date the water purifier was installed and started functioning. She alleged that 7 to 8 times the water purifier created problems like water storage, candle and other problems and ultimately on 12/07/2016 when the technician attended the machine for repair she requested that the machine needed to be replaced. Then on 20/07/2016 when she faced problems again in the water purifier she wrote a written complaint and submitted it to OP- 3. On the same date one technician of OP- 3 attended and repaired the machine. Thereafter, as the complainant alleged, the machine remained unattended when she demanded that the machine should be replaced.
In their written version OP- 1 & 4 denied all the allegations the complainant put forward before this Forum/Commission. They alleged that all the allegations of the complainant are concocted, designed and based on false facts in order to malign the reputation of a well known widely accepted company, i. e. M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd and extract money for wrongful gain. They claimed that the said water purifier was all along functioning in perfect manner from the date of installation and there was no serious problems ever occurred in this purifier machine. If there was any problem it was due to lack on her side to clean up the external bowl of ‘Ironil’ from time to time and use of poor condition of source of water used in this machine. They alleged that the complainant was using two different source of water for which the TDS factor varied regularly. They stated in this written version that they regularly educated the complainant how to clean the external bowl considering the bad condition of source water. They stated that they had enough evidences to prove that the complainant was negligent in using the water purifier and for her negligence the water purifier faced problems time and again. It is alleged in the written version that the complainant should have to use ‘one specific better conditioned water in the purifier’. Whenever the complainant registered any problem service technician of the OPs immediately attended and solved the problem. So there was no latches from the part of the OPs which can be termed as deficiency in service. Almost the same statement has been written in their Evidence on Affidavit and Brief Notes on Argument. They annexed (a) two Service Request Activity Reports in respect of the complainant dated 12/07/2016 and 20/07/2016 and (b) four Customer Feedback Forms, two each for dated 30/12/2016 and 20/01/2017, claimed to be in respect of some A A Khan and S Ahamed, residing in the same address.
Let us now begin our consideration. It is an admitted fact, as is seen from the copies of receipts attached with the complaint petition, that on 11/10/2015 complainant paid an amount of Rs.17,535/- to one Mrs. Kakali Chowdhury, a saleswoman of M/s. Kutchina Lifestyle Appliances, the OP-2 stated herein above, intending to purchase Aquaguard RO Reviva water purifier, Ironil and Wall Mount Tray. On 16/10/2015 the OP-1 issued two Chillan/Invoices to the purchaser/complainant in respect of such purchase. So, according to the definition as laid down under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [U/S 2(7) the C. P. Act, 2019] the Purchaser/Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ to the OPs. The OP Nos. 1, 3 & 4 were responsible for maintaining the water purifier in complete normal and operative condition, because safe drinking water is the basic and primary requirement of a person’s life. So, they were responsible to provide ‘Service’, as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the C. P Act, 1986 [U/S. 2(42) of the C. P. Act, 2019]. It was the basic duty of the OP- 1 & 4 to keep the water purifier in normal operative condition. Complainant’s allegation is that the water purifier was frequently facing problems like TDS problem, water overloading, damage of TDS controller, etc. and every time a technician attended it, repaired and again it became problematic. This means that the OPs sold the machine having some inherent defects or without verifying the prevailing situation of the complainant’s residence in respect of source of water. They pointed out that the varying TDS of the source of water is the main cause of frequent problems developing in the machine. But they have not mentioned whether they had taken any primary investigation about the possibility of installing a water purifier in that address or about the suitability of the concerned model. It is a fact that the OPs only intention was to sell a machine without verifying feasibility of installation in such a place where TDS varies frequently. OP- 1 & 4 annexed Customer Feedback Forms which were not signed by the concerned customers. This means that these Feedbacks have no authenticity on which one can rely upon. Moreover, the service request activity reports, which both the complainant and the OP- 1 & 4 annexed, do not bear the customer’s signature and even there is nothing reported about the repair or any kind of activity done by the technician. So, it can easily be said that the OPs were reluctant in rendering proper service to the purchaser/complainant and they did not bother on their basic duty of providing safe drinking water to the customer/consumer. OP- 1 & 4 stated that they are a very well known and reputed company. But their meager management in respect of the subject water purifier is not worthy to their reputation, especially when safe drinking water should be provided through this machine.
So, in my opinion, there is a gross deficiency in service caused by the OPs for which they should compensate and the complainant is entitled to get relief as a purchaser/consumer. OPs should either solve all problems the water purifier is facing frequently with extended warranty for the remaining period of warranty or refund the entire sum the complainant paid during purchasing the machine.
Moreover, according to an article published in The Times Of India on October 28, 2020, Dr. Suresh Sisodia wrote:
“TDS means total dissolved solids - the value represents the total amount of dissolved substances in water. TDS contains both inorganic salts, as well as some amount of organic chemicals. It may include both essential/ useful and harmful or hazardous chemicals dissolved in a specific volume of water. ….. higher level of TDS is associated with higher level of hardness in water, which also plays a role in imparting an objectionable taste to water. This makes it important to measure the TDS level in water before consuming it. It can be measured using a TDS meter. It also lets you know the total amount of impurities dissolved in water. As per Bureau of Indian Standards the acceptable limit of TDS for drinking water is 500 mg/L. …… In essence, this means that a high TDS count of your water could be filled with essential minerals, and toxic organic matter. TDS measures the solids in your water but does not indicate whether those solids are beneficial or hazardous. TDS alone can’t guarantee the safe drinking water. It is far more important to ensure the absence of hazardous chemicals in water or maintaining them within permissible levels prescribed by the standards. The presence of toxic ions such as lead, cadmium, nitrate, and arsenic present in water are responsible for numerous serious health concerns. This instantly impacts children since their immune system is developing and is not as strong as mature people.”
The annexed documents of the OP- 1 & 4 show that, if these can be accepted as authentic, TDS level of the water used at the premises of the complainant lies between 290ppm to 407ppm which is within the permitted level. However, according to a statement made in the website of the reputed packaged drinking water supply company called ‘Bisleri’, Be it mentioned here that the complainant has not noted the address of the OP- 3, M/s. Rao Enterprise, which is given in receipt of her letter dated 20/07/2016 as 275, G. T. Road, Howrah – 711 102. Complainant also not mentioned the name of the company of OP- 4. Moreover, the OP- 1 company’s authorized FBP, i. e. M/s. Sayan Appliances, 550/1, D. H. Road, Manton, Kolkata – 700 034, has issued the Challan and Tax Invoice dated 16/10/2016, which is also not noticed by the complainant. However, these are not barring the complainant to claim relief(s).
The questionnaire filed by OP- 1 & 4 are mostly based on the technical capability of the complainant and the answers thereof given by the complainant are in tune to the questions put forward and these session does not help the OPs to prove that they are not deficient in their service.
All these discussions lead us to conclude that the complainant has purchased a water purifier which was not functioning properly within the warranty period for which the OPs had to provide repeated service to repair the problems. Repeated problems led the complainant to claim replacement of the machine which was still under the warranty. The OPs, on the other hand, failed to make the machine problem-free though repeated services had been done. As a result the Complainant expected that the defective machine should be made problem-free or the purchase price should be refunded. So, I think, the manufacturing company, the OP- 1 as stated hereinabove, should be directed to either repair properly the subject water purifier with extended warranty period or replace it with the same model or refund the purchase price of Rs.17,535/- as claimed by the complainant. Considering the prayer for compensation, we take note of the fact that the complainant has used the water purifier till 20/07/2016 from its installation and the OPs rendered repeated service. But if the OPs are failed to repair it properly then they should refund the purchase price along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon till realization in the form of compensation. All the OPs must pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost as she is compelled to knock at the door of this Forum/Commission to seek her grievance be redressed.
Hence,
it is
ORDERED
That the complaint Case bearing No. CC/344/2016 is allowed on contest against Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 4 and ex parte against O. P. Nos. 2 & 3.
The O. P. Nos. 1 & 4 are directed to either solve all the problems of the water purifier of Model RO Reviva purchased by the complainant with extended warranty or replace it by the same model or refund Rs.17,535/- along with a simple interest thereon @ 9% per annum with effect from 11/10/2015 till the date of this order within 30 days from this date. All the O. Ps. are directed to pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost within the above-mentioned time period.
Dictated and corrected by me
Member.
